"We disagree, and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval
Office disagrees, with that conclusion from the Supreme Court,"
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters
Monday.

There's been little solace for Obama this Supreme Court
term. In addition to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Obama
administration and the causes it has supported have experienced a
handful of high-profile setbacks before the high
court.

Earnest was asked if Obama was concerned or frustrated about the
way the term went for the administration.

"I'd hesitate to make a broad assessment like that from
this podium," Earnest said.

But other legal experts and the president's political
opponents have taken notice. Since January 2012, the Obama
administration has suffered at least 13 unanimous defeats in
cases it argued (not counting cases in which it filed an amicus
brief), according to the libertarian-leaning Cato
Institute.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional
studies at the Cato Institute, told Business Insider that while
5-4 decisions can be blamed on the conservative-liberal split of
the court, unanimous decisions are "indicative of an
administration that pushes and breaks through the envelope in its
assertion of federal power."

Added a GOP Senate aide in an email to Business Insider:
"Recent court decisions say as much about Democrat overreach as
they do about anything else, and no data point underscores that
more clearly than the dozen unanimous defeats they’ve handed to
Obama."

Speaker of the House John
Boehner (L) walks away as U.S. President Barack Obama waves upon
his departure from the annual Friends of Ireland luncheon at the
Capitol in Washington, March 14, 2014.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Two of the rulings handed down over the past week — the NLRB
decision and the Hobby Lobby decision — get to the core of the
argument Republicans will push this election season. Since Obama
announced his intention to make 2014 a "year of action" full of
executive actions, Republicans have decried it as an abuse of
power. House Speaker John Boehner intends to sue Obama over his prevalent use of
executive actions.

That perceived overstep fits in with the Hobby Lobby
decision, which Republicans argued was about "religious
liberty."

"The decision
affirms that Americans, contrary to what the Obama administration
attempted to impose, have a right to live and work in accordance
to their conscience and can’t be forced to surrender their
religious freedom once they open a business," Sen. Ted Cruz said
in a statement.

"This ruling is a repudiation of the Obama administration’s
untenable position that people with sincerely held religious
beliefs should be forced to comply with an unconstitutional
mandate while a parade of waivers, exemptions, and delays are
granted for purely commercial and political interests."

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin
predicted the two decisions, described as "narrow" by
many legal experts, will be anything but — since they open the
door to future legal challenges. Toobin considers it part of a
classic "two-step" feature of the Chief Justice John Roberts
court — hand down a "narrow" ruling now, and make sweeping
decisions later.

Both of the decisions — from the public-sector unions case
(Harris v. Quinn) and the Hobby Lobby case — are examples of
rulings that could lead to further, more sweeping rewrites of
laws. One needs only to glance at the scathing dissent of liberal Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the Hobby Lobby decision to see
the angst of many liberals and Democrats after this term.

Ginsburg said the court established a new precedent in the Hobby
Lobby case — one that "invites for-profit entities to seek
religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to
their faith."